Nostalgia and Obsession in A Generative AI Era
Clik here to view.
Reflecting on the Edge of Tomorrow
Blade Runner,” directed by Ridley Scott, is an iconic film adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” This cinematic masterpiece depicts a future where genuine life forms are scarce, a consequence of catastrophic ecological disasters. By bringing Dick’s vision to the screen, Scott delves into a world where humanity is trapped by the repercussions of its technological advancements. Artificial beings have become both ubiquitous and a symbol of luxury.
At first glance, the film warns of the ecological perils posed by unchecked technological progress. However, its deeper narrative explores the human condition, examining our nostalgia and fixation with what technological progress has erased. As we approach an era dominated by generative AI, with capabilities that seem to spring from the pages of science fiction into reality, the story gains a new layer of intrigue. Rather than dancing between extreme fear and wild hope for the AI future, we can adopt Philip K. Dick’s loved “what-if” approach, imagining a completed AI revolution. Now, we must confront the aftermath, including the loss of craftsmanship in a painter’s skillful hands, a photographer’s sharp sense of timing to immortalize fleeting moments, and a writer’s prose that intricately chronicles the complexities of humanity.
Do Artificial Owls Hunt for Electric Toads?
In “Blade Runner,” directed by Ridley Scott, Rick Deckard, formerly a police officer now tracking rogue replicants, finds himself at the Tyrell Corporation. Replicants, bioengineered beings virtually identical to humans and created for labor and entertainment in off-world colonies, are central to the story. During his visit, Deckard is captivated by an artificial owl gliding smoothly from perch to perch, marking his first encounter with Rachael. Rachael, who later becomes Deckard’s significant other, sparks their initial exchange by asking if he finds the owl appealing. Rachael quickly confirms Deckard’s guess that the owl is artificial.
This interaction highlights the extent to which technology has infiltrated their existence, casting doubt on the authenticity of entities that appear lifelike. Rachael’s confirmation exposes a world where artificial life is the norm, reflecting a deep longing for the dwindling natural world. Their polite conversation offers insight into a reality where genuine, living things are a rarity.
While Ridley Scott’s film adaptation closely aligns with the essence of Philip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”, there are noticeable differences in details and focus. One of the novel’s catching moments is Deckard’s discovery of what he believes is a real toad in a barren landscape, a priceless find in their ecologically devastated world. This moment of happiness, cut short by the realization that the toad is artificial, starkly highlights our innate desire to connect with nature. In the novel, Deckard is married to Iran, who, touched by her husband’s attachment to the toad, decides to indulge the fantasy by obtaining artificial flies for it.
The reactions to both the owl and the toad illustrate the widespread acceptance of artificial life, signaling a broader, albeit reluctant, societal shift towards a reality filled with artificial beings. Bridging the narrative between the novel and its film adaptation, one might reflect, with a hint of sadness, on whether artificial owls hunt for electric toads, as depicted in the cover image, echoing ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
The Generative-AI Dystopia
Let’s delve into a world akin to Philip K. Dick’s speculative universe, where ecological disasters have rendered genuine life forms rare. This backdrop raises questions about authenticity and the acceptance of artificiality, like the synthetic toad in “Blade Runner.” As generative AI continues to evolve, it redefines humanity, provoking a complex dialogue about the future of originality and human creativity.
In the visual arts, AI platforms like MidJourney and Stable Diffusion are at the forefront, producing artworks that challenge traditional perceptions of depth and beauty, heralding significant shifts in creative expression.
In literature, AI’s potential is showcased through works like “The Inner Life of an AI: A Memoir by ChatGPT,” and Rob Knott’s speculative “50 Ways AI Would End The World,” which delve into AI’s narrative capabilities and limitations (All Good Great) (Enterprise Technology News and Analysis).
The filmmaking industry is also being transformed by AI through technologies like OpenAI’s Sora, which turns simple text prompts into rich, complex 1-minute visual stories. This is exemplified by the production company shy kids in their film “Air Head,” and the freedom experienced by director Paul Trillo, showcasing how Sora facilitates a new era of creativity unbounded by traditional filmmaking constraints (OpenAI) (No Film School).
In interactive and virtual experiences, Google and Stanford’s creation of Smallville introduces 25 AI-driven characters that simulate complex human interactions, setting a new benchmark for virtual realism (Analytics Vidhya). Brud’s virtual influencer Lil Miquela, who engages with fans to create community-driven content, highlights the evolving relationship between virtual characters and their human audiences (VirtualHumans).
Let’s extrapolate these trends and envision a future where they are not just novelties but norms in our daily lives. This shift might intensify our longing for purely human creations once they become scarce or even obsolete.
Will literature, meticulously penned word by word by sensitive souls,
And paintings, conjured stroke by stroke by magical hands,
Films, directed shot by shot by inspired minds,
Photographs captured frame by frame, with observant eyes attuned to nuances of time and light,
And characters portrayed move by move, with the depth and expressiveness only flesh can achieve —
Be missed, as they fade into the quiet night of nostalgia, becoming rare or even extinct?
Reflecting on a future where humanity is increasingly distanced from its creations through AI prompts a deeper examination of the distinction between direct human creation and AI-assisted creation. This intersection presents a conundrum: as AI tools, guided by human-generated prompts, increasingly handle the act of creation, what implications does this have for the authenticity of the final product?
The ‘AI-Generated’ vs. ‘Authentic’ Conundrum
The distinction between “artificial” and “authentic” is straightforward when you look at “Blade Runner” and Philip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”. In these stories, anything made by humans is considered artificial, while the stuff that pops up in nature on its own is natural.
Enter generative AI where the focus is on human-made stuff, and things start to get complicated. The word “artificial” used to be for things made by human hands. This debate digs into what makes something authentic in the world of AI. Is something only authentic if made directly by humans? Or can something created by AI, which was ultimately made by humans through prompts, count as authentic too?
Consider the cover image ‘Do Artificial Owls Hunt for Electric Toads?’ The scene it conjures is rich with the quiet, vibrant life of the natural world at night, depicted with striking detail. The owl, with its exquisitely detailed feathers, glows under the moon’s backlight, creating an almost otherworldly aura. The toad, textured and brimming with life, poised for movement. Flies hover in a delicate dance, captured in a moment of eager anticipation by the toad, its tongue barely visible in readiness. The setting thrives with intricacy: blades of grass that seem to whisper in the night, moss that invites touch, and an ancient tree that grounds the entire scene. This tableau is a dance of life, with the owl’s graceful hunt, the toad’s vigilant wait, and the flies’ lively flight, all frozen in a moment that bridges the fleeting with the everlasting.
Yet, the inspiration for this vivid imagery came from a simple prompt I provided to ChatGPT-4: “Render a photorealistic scene of a nocturnal hunt: an owl in mid-flight, about to pounce on a toad, which is itself poised to catch a fly, all under the soft glow of moonlight.” The AI crafted the rest, creating an image that not only resonated with me but potentially with my audience as well. This efficiency is remarkable, as it took merely 10 minutes of experimentation to arrive at an outcome that captivated me.
As AI continues to refine its ability to create art, one might wonder about the future of traditional art forms like hand painting and photography. If AI can generate works that deeply resonate on a human level, what becomes of the brush and canvas, the darkroom, or the photographer’s lens? Picture a world where the lines between AI-generated art and human-created masterpieces become blurred to the point of indistinguishability.
The complexity increases when you consider how AI learns — it is fed a wealth of material produced by humans and then begins to create independently, though still prompted by humans. This cycle of absorbing and generating content further blurs the lines. When AI creates a piece of art that resonates emotionally, the feelings it evokes are genuine, but the creation process itself is one step removed from direct human input, crafted instead by algorithms that are informed by previous human creative efforts.
The Lost Treasures of Humanity’s Brushstroke
Consider the implications for artists and photographers themselves. As their work competes with AI creations, might they feel the urge to distinguish their art as uniquely human, or could they embrace AI as just another tool in their creative arsenal, much like the camera or paintbrush?
Imagine a gallery filled with exquisite pieces, where each artwork has the power to stir deep emotions or provoke thought. Visitors meander through this space, whispers trailing behind them: “Could an AI have created this?” This speculation not only influences their perception of art but also prompts introspection about the depth of connection to works possibly devoid of the personal touch, struggles, and triumphs of a human creator.
Now, extend this thought to a cinema where audiences are equally captivated by a film’s narrative and performances. As the lights come up, the same question lingers in the air, “Was this the work of AI?” This reflection could dramatically reshape our engagement with cinema, pushing us to reevaluate our emotional responses to stories that might not spring from human experiences.
In both venues, the line between creations by AI and those by human hands becomes increasingly indiscernible, prompting us to question: Will our appreciation for the meticulous skill of hand painting, the intuitive eye of photography, the director’s unique vision, and the actors’ portrayal of complex emotions diminish, or might it deepen?
Humanity’s Last Stand
Similar to how high-definition video recalibrated our expectations for visual clarity, our search for authenticity is poised for an upgrade. Intriguingly, research in AI that can identify AI-generated content is becoming increasingly sophisticated and serves as an interesting approach to maintaining the authenticity and originality of human-made content. Adobe’s Content Authenticity Initiative provides ways to track the origin and history of digital content, allowing users to see if an image or video has been altered or generated by AI. OpenAI’s GPT detectors are designed to identify text generated by AI, particularly those from models similar to their own (e.g., GPT-2, GPT-3).
In envisioning a future where the prevalence of AI-generated content echoes the themes of artificial life in “Blade Runner” and “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”, we anticipate a significant shift if the advancement of AI is unchecked. This scenario suggests an environment where artificial creations are not just common but dominant, profoundly impacting our perception of authenticity and the nature of creativity itself. As this emerging reality unfolds, our experience could mirror the plight of the fictional universe, with genuine human expression teetering on the brink of extinction, echoing the endangered species in Dick’s imagined world.
Reflected in Dick’s narrative, akin to the yearning for unspoiled aspects of nature, the widespread presence of AI-generated content may heighten our longing for creations rich in genuine human creativity and thought. This might lead to a profound nostalgia or a passionate quest for truly authentic works, deeply rooted in our enduring attachment to authenticity in an increasingly artificial world.
Such collective longing and nostalgia, echoing the sentiments of those fictional narratives, may serve as our final refuge, while the very notion of authenticity continues to evolve.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.